Seriously, I just haven't seen Microsoft really take advantage of this situation. Maybe you have. MS could really work up the alleged copyright theft and market that to potential customers if they wanted to. This is just one more reason to stay away from those greedy UNIX pushers who'd slit your throat if they thought you swallowed a penny, or those communist Linux rogues who'd suppress you, your bottom line, and your legal department with that crazy UFO-worshiping religion of theirs
Obviously, there are a lot of suits that would duck and cover or run in the opposite direction at a sales pitch like that.
Nope. I was talking about Amiga users... chubby Amiga users... chubby Amiga users that don't share cookies.
But incidently, I had heard that Amiga is planning a comeback. Whether it will be a sold-out performance at the Meadowlands or a greatest hits album you can only buy on TV, remains to be seen.
There are people out there who do. I met some, but to be specific, the general consensus among them is that Linux is too risky to adopt because it's a stolen technology. Companies that use Linux could be punished for using an illegal product, Linux, and so ought not use it.
But you have to understand, people like these aren't idiots. They have only heard the sound bites just like the vast majority of corporate world that isn't in IS/IT. They lack the background knowledge of the issue as well as the technical knowledge to be able to make an informed judgment.
I still don't believe this is Microsoft-backed FUD. I haven't read any statements from MS that say "see, we told you so." Sure Microsoft benefits, but so does Apple, UNIX vendors who don't want to see Linux takeover, and Amiga users... Yes, Amiga users, they just sit there so smug...
But seriously, their losses of late are in line with losses throughout the entertainment industry, and their quantification of actual losses incurred by music piracy are greatly exaggerated... but then I'm preaching to the choir here.
I wish I could take credit for it. I was converted to the idea after a few drinks with a technologist whose even more militant about these things than I:)
College radio? WSOU... in my opinion, still the best radio station in America. I've long boycotted commercial radio because of companies like ClearChannel and Infinity.
They can continue to blame piracy if they want.
Blame piracy for what? The last figures I saw show that the RIAA recorded record profits during the height of Napster trading, and that the lower profits they take in now are in line with the rest of the entertainment industry given the economy.
I hadn't realized that Rage Against the Machine was associated with a big music label. I would of thought they would of jumped ship once they could afford to. Protesting the WTO doesn't mean much if you're employed by Big Music.
What is sad is that this great organization you described is what the RIAA is suppose to be.
I don't know. I always thought the RIAA existed to guard the business interests of the execs vis-a-vis politicians, the media, AND the musicians.
SAG has been a pretty effective tool for the actors against the studios and the MPAA. Maybe there ought to be a union for musicians if there isn't one already
I used to hear a lot of complaints about how Adobe was bringing upgrades and new product releases to the Windows platform first before Mac. Wouldn't that count?
I'm sorry, I didn't get your point. The US is considered an opt-out country. This is something that is taught in the business schools, and this may explain the audacity of companies to send emails of the sort you mention. The government has preferred that the market bear the responsibility of solving the issue through filters, firewalls, and other products.
And of course in the offline world, we have (well, at least I have) all those damn letters disguised as official US Post Office notifications that are really advertisements for local car dealerships.
And they always seem to come from Clearwater, Florida. The telemarkets too... What is it about Florida??!?!
they have already been convicted of price fixing, ripping off the consumers, delaying technologoy, and ruining the financial lives of more artists
This relates back to comment you made in another post, but I think it would be nice to see a benevolent organization of musicians and consumer-friendly music biz people who can among other things, educate musicians on their legal rights and obligations before these young artists get screwed by the RIAA and Big Music. Maybe you already know of such an organization. Said organization at the bare minimum could force young artists to understand the business side of music and further empower them with stronger bargaining power. This organization could also promote the plight of musicians, the relevance of music sharing to encouraing musican's rights, and the overall evilness of the RIAA to consumers through advertisements. It would seem that such things should be the job of the artists' managers, but even managers often find themselves cut short by big music execs.
An organization like this could be the big RIAA equalizer, and just the political unification music sharers need. I think music sharing will always be shady if it doesn't get more musicians and music execs behind it. Such was the case for the VCR.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. I say consumers should concentrate their efforts on attacking the RIAA on consumption rights rather than artists' rights, copyights, or economic benefits. The RIAA in many cases does own the music, and so retains the right to reject opportunities for profit. We can't even begin to argue artists' rights since many artists are themselves owned by the industry due to production financing.
I think that socially conscious artists like Annie Lennox, Roger Waters, and Peter Gabriel can go a long way in helping musicians see an alternative to the RIAA. They are the ones who should be arguing artists' rights in the first place.
Unfortunately, I wonder what impact another Nirvana or Ani DiFranco doing well without (or despite) the RIAA will really have on consumers and other musicians. I think if you're a Rage Against the Machine fan, or even heard of Coum Transmissions, you probably already have a consumer and artist -friendly attitude.
Oh but it would be great to see something good chart the CMJ again
Don't joke, there are more than a few senators and congressmen advocating that all consumer privacy rights issues be treated with the creation of a market for third-party consumer protection products like firewalls, mail filters, and bug scanners.
Why do we need fake musicians like britney spears?
At least we agree that Britney Spears isn't a real musician. But that is beside the point. If young teenage girls and young college-age boys want to listen to Britney Spears on MP3, CD, or on some brand new delivery method, it's there right. The RIAA doesn't like this, because they like controlling the method of delivery. As I said before, licensing revenues... it's all about that. But, we probably shouldn't expect the RIAA to embrace new technologies, given that the MPAA took years to realize it could make a killing on home video. Remember Justice Scalia ranting and raving about the VCR would destroy the industry?
60 million is a big number, I'd say the majority of consumers have already decided.
60 million isn't a big enough number to cause all the retailers to close shop and take music sales online. Besides, there's nothing really wrong with the current distribution method to cause this. I just don't see a majority of people giving up CDs for MP3s or DVDs for DivXs. A majority of consumers aren't so puritian that they will only decide to use one method over another. I leave it to zealots to argue that you should listen to music ONLY as MP3s (or as CDs for that matter). See, I'm flexible:)
No ones talking about selling MP3s. I was because it's a tangent issue.
Listening to you claim that digital music sharing has killed the RIAA's business model reminds me of earlier claims about how the dot-coms would crush all traditional business models, which in turn reminds me of even earlier claims about how computers would reduce paper use.
The RIAA is a powerful political lobby as well as a business association, and it represents big music distributors and producers. It's really unlikely that they will go the way of the dinosaur or that they will lose all influence.
People shouldn't get lost in the rhetoric. Sure the RIAA regularly screws consumers and musicians, but its member companies are the ones responsible for album production, marketing, distribution, merchandising, etc. Yes, we can find an online alternative for each of these things, but will it be as pervasive? None of the independent bands or labels relying solely on the Internet have reached the critical mass of Britney Spears... and little Britney would still be living in a trailer if it were up to her to finance an album and tour by herself.
Online music sharing would make a great complement to existing distribution and marketing channels, but as a complete and total replacement, it won't happen until every last music consumer decides they don't want to go to a physical store to buy a physical CD.
I didn't question the legality of MP3s. Again, the RIAA only wants you to consume music using an accepted audio playback device. Several Congressmen and Senators to include former Senator Bob Barr recognize music consumption as being licensed. The MP3 format itself is legal, but the audio CD format with copy protection is not illegal. What government says and does are two separate things wholly.
The RIAA continues to support prodution and distribution of audio CDs that have copy protection built-in in order to circumvent attempts to convert music to another format.
The RIAA supports buying MP3s, provided that the MP3 were distributed by a licensed vendor who obtained authorization to generate MP3s. Apple's music store is legal. You selling MP3s online you made without license would be illegal.
No, you buy the license to consume the music on the disc according to the RIAA and recognized by Congress. The RIAA doesn't approve consumption by any other means than an accepted audio CD playback device.
You would know this, understand it, and accept it as gospel if you were forced to read an EULA for every CD you bought... but that would hurt CD distribution, and so they leave out the license.
If it wasn't for lawmakers supporting the RIAA, the RIAA could not retroactively apply a license where one was not known to exist. You would have unknowingly been forced into a contractual obligation. In that case, your statement would be legally correct. As it is now, your statement is only morally correct. Sorry.
Maybe it's the vodka shots and margueritas coursing through my system, but these are some of the most convoluted posts I have read yet on Slashdot. I'm not sure I follow any of the arguments these posters are making.
A person with intellectual property rights does not have more/less rights than a person with physical property rights. Copying furniture and clothes???? Cheap knock-offs have long existed in the marketplace. Ask any woman on a budget. What makes digital music different from tangible physical products is that music can be distributed electronically far more easily and cheaply than clothes or television sets. Therefore, copyright violations for music tend to be far more pervasive.
Let's not wax poetic about how the musicians own their music. This is not generally true unless that musician is a powerhouse who wrote, produced, financed, and distributed the album independently of a third-party. Let us not forget, even Paul McCartney had to pay royalties to Michael Jackson in order to perform Beatles songs Paul himself wrote.
If the RIAA or a member company owns the music, it does have a right to say "screw you." You broke your CD, buy a new one. Sony won't give you a new TV just because you threw your scratched up the screen or broke the tuner.
Anyone who things he has a write to own, copy, and distribute someone else's work product without compensating them in a way they agree to is a fool. And a fool can argue all day long about legitimate uses of file-sharing, but the fact is, he himself won't likely buy anything he can't steal online.
That being said, this doesn't make the RIAA 100% right. Most people on both sides of the issue are misunderstanding the issue, the agenda, and what's at stake. This include the idiots over at EFF who recently put a hack of a lawyer on talking heads new program to defend file-sharing with a foolish arrogant, "it's here to stay, just accept it."
The real issue isn't copyrights, it's consumption rights; specifically, the effect of consumption rights on revenue streams from consumption licensing. The RIAA's agenda is to control the method by which you, the possessor of a legally purchased CD, consumes the product. This is how RIAA can ensure it makes a profit each time the music is consumed. The RIAA wants you only to play your CD on a *licensed* CD playback device (DVD player, Walkman, stereo, car stereo) so only you and a few others can consume it at any given time. Remember, the RIAA doesn't want you playing those CDs in public forums without first obtaining a license and paying royalties. The RIAA does not want you to consume your CD vitually, using MP3.com's murdered streaming music service or by using MP3/WMA backups. The RIAA doesn't want you using your CDROM and PC as a stereo. They want you to buy the stereo. The RIAA doesn't want you to make digital copies of your CDs for any purpose unless you first buy a *licensed* expensive Philips CD burner stereo component. This is one reason why the RIAA supports a CD format that can't be copied. If the use of technologies like file-sharing and lossless file-encoding formats reaches critical mass, there might be less need to purchase all those extra hardware components. The RIAA as a result losses revenues.
Similarly, the MPAA only wants you to consume your DVD using licensed DVD hardware. If Linux developers aren't willing to pay licensing fees (which would be prohibitively astronomical if you refuse to pass the cost down to your customers), there won't be legal DVD support on Linux with MPAA's backing. DVD burners cost a lot because of licensing fees and liability issues, not because the technology is exceptionally whiz-bang.
Maybe Final Cut and Final Cut Pro is Apple's way of punishing Adobe for being so lackluster in its Mac support while trumpeting Windows over the last several years?
I wonder what the court would say if an overlay ad were strategically placed over the logo of a website so as to conceal the ownership of the site.
Kinda like if the Slashdot logo being replaced by a FortuneCity logo.
Maybe then the court would have a problem. An old case comes to mind about a webmaster whose news site using frames to load news stories from other news site like CNN, etc.
I agree. Congress has proven itself again and again to be inept when it comes to legislating electronic communications. Maybe's it's because there's not likey not a single engineering or scientist among them. Maybe it's because of the lobbyists. That would at least explain why Congress is so adament that illegalizing spam and popups would hurt the Internet and make everything online cost more...
There are a lot of people who rifle through popup windows without first checking things like certificate validity or origin. So a lot of people aren't going to go to the website in order to learn about GAIN.
Yes, that's their fault if they're too impatient or trusting to investigate things like GAIN, but it's for the same reason that we put cute labels about things that should be obvious like "Do Not Eat" or "Very Hot" on products.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I just haven't seen Microsoft really take advantage of this situation. Maybe you have. MS could really work up the alleged copyright theft and market that to potential customers if they wanted to. This is just one more reason to stay away from those greedy UNIX pushers who'd slit your throat if they thought you swallowed a penny, or those communist Linux rogues who'd suppress you, your bottom line, and your legal department with that crazy UFO-worshiping religion of theirs
Obviously, there are a lot of suits that would duck and cover or run in the opposite direction at a sales pitch like that.
Nope. I was talking about Amiga users... chubby Amiga users... chubby Amiga users that don't share cookies.
But incidently, I had heard that Amiga is planning a comeback. Whether it will be a sold-out performance at the Meadowlands or a greatest hits album you can only buy on TV, remains to be seen.
There are people out there who do. I met some, but to be specific, the general consensus among them is that Linux is too risky to adopt because it's a stolen technology. Companies that use Linux could be punished for using an illegal product, Linux, and so ought not use it.
But you have to understand, people like these aren't idiots. They have only heard the sound bites just like the vast majority of corporate world that isn't in IS/IT. They lack the background knowledge of the issue as well as the technical knowledge to be able to make an informed judgment.
I still don't believe this is Microsoft-backed FUD. I haven't read any statements from MS that say "see, we told you so." Sure Microsoft benefits, but so does Apple, UNIX vendors who don't want to see Linux takeover, and Amiga users... Yes, Amiga users, they just sit there so smug...
Yes I was joking... :)
But seriously, their losses of late are in line with losses throughout the entertainment industry, and their quantification of actual losses incurred by music piracy are greatly exaggerated... but then I'm preaching to the choir here.
Consumption Rights. I like that term
:)
I wish I could take credit for it. I was converted to the idea after a few drinks with a technologist whose even more militant about these things than I
College radio? WSOU... in my opinion, still the best radio station in America. I've long boycotted commercial radio because of companies like ClearChannel and Infinity.
They can continue to blame piracy if they want. Blame piracy for what? The last figures I saw show that the RIAA recorded record profits during the height of Napster trading, and that the lower profits they take in now are in line with the rest of the entertainment industry given the economy.
I hadn't realized that Rage Against the Machine was associated with a big music label. I would of thought they would of jumped ship once they could afford to. Protesting the WTO doesn't mean much if you're employed by Big Music.
What is sad is that this great organization you described is what the RIAA is suppose to be.
I don't know. I always thought the RIAA existed to guard the business interests of the execs vis-a-vis politicians, the media, AND the musicians.
SAG has been a pretty effective tool for the actors against the studios and the MPAA. Maybe there ought to be a union for musicians if there isn't one already
I used to hear a lot of complaints about how Adobe was bringing upgrades and new product releases to the Windows platform first before Mac. Wouldn't that count?
So that's what people think of opt-in
I'm sorry, I didn't get your point. The US is considered an opt-out country. This is something that is taught in the business schools, and this may explain the audacity of companies to send emails of the sort you mention. The government has preferred that the market bear the responsibility of solving the issue through filters, firewalls, and other products.
And of course in the offline world, we have (well, at least I have) all those damn letters disguised as official US Post Office notifications that are really advertisements for local car dealerships.
And they always seem to come from Clearwater, Florida. The telemarkets too... What is it about Florida??!?!
they have already been convicted of price fixing, ripping off the consumers, delaying technologoy, and ruining the financial lives of more artists This relates back to comment you made in another post, but I think it would be nice to see a benevolent organization of musicians and consumer-friendly music biz people who can among other things, educate musicians on their legal rights and obligations before these young artists get screwed by the RIAA and Big Music. Maybe you already know of such an organization. Said organization at the bare minimum could force young artists to understand the business side of music and further empower them with stronger bargaining power. This organization could also promote the plight of musicians, the relevance of music sharing to encouraing musican's rights, and the overall evilness of the RIAA to consumers through advertisements. It would seem that such things should be the job of the artists' managers, but even managers often find themselves cut short by big music execs.
An organization like this could be the big RIAA equalizer, and just the political unification music sharers need. I think music sharing will always be shady if it doesn't get more musicians and music execs behind it. Such was the case for the VCR.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. I say consumers should concentrate their efforts on attacking the RIAA on consumption rights rather than artists' rights, copyights, or economic benefits. The RIAA in many cases does own the music, and so retains the right to reject opportunities for profit. We can't even begin to argue artists' rights since many artists are themselves owned by the industry due to production financing.
I think that socially conscious artists like Annie Lennox, Roger Waters, and Peter Gabriel can go a long way in helping musicians see an alternative to the RIAA. They are the ones who should be arguing artists' rights in the first place.
Unfortunately, I wonder what impact another Nirvana or Ani DiFranco doing well without (or despite) the RIAA will really have on consumers and other musicians. I think if you're a Rage Against the Machine fan, or even heard of Coum Transmissions, you probably already have a consumer and artist -friendly attitude.
Oh but it would be great to see something good chart the CMJ again
Don't joke, there are more than a few senators and congressmen advocating that all consumer privacy rights issues be treated with the creation of a market for third-party consumer protection products like firewalls, mail filters, and bug scanners.
If you're in Europe where it is opt-in, no problem. In the US it's basically "opt-out, opt-out, write a nasty letter, change your name, and move"
Why do we need fake musicians like britney spears?
:)
At least we agree that Britney Spears isn't a real musician. But that is beside the point. If young teenage girls and young college-age boys want to listen to Britney Spears on MP3, CD, or on some brand new delivery method, it's there right. The RIAA doesn't like this, because they like controlling the method of delivery. As I said before, licensing revenues... it's all about that. But, we probably shouldn't expect the RIAA to embrace new technologies, given that the MPAA took years to realize it could make a killing on home video. Remember Justice Scalia ranting and raving about the VCR would destroy the industry?
60 million is a big number, I'd say the majority of consumers have already decided. 60 million isn't a big enough number to cause all the retailers to close shop and take music sales online. Besides, there's nothing really wrong with the current distribution method to cause this. I just don't see a majority of people giving up CDs for MP3s or DVDs for DivXs. A majority of consumers aren't so puritian that they will only decide to use one method over another. I leave it to zealots to argue that you should listen to music ONLY as MP3s (or as CDs for that matter). See, I'm flexible
I don't think Microsoft sucks. I just don't trust the company or agree with a lot of their practices.
Oh wait...
No ones talking about selling MP3s. I was because it's a tangent issue.
Listening to you claim that digital music sharing has killed the RIAA's business model reminds me of earlier claims about how the dot-coms would crush all traditional business models, which in turn reminds me of even earlier claims about how computers would reduce paper use.
The RIAA is a powerful political lobby as well as a business association, and it represents big music distributors and producers. It's really unlikely that they will go the way of the dinosaur or that they will lose all influence.
People shouldn't get lost in the rhetoric. Sure the RIAA regularly screws consumers and musicians, but its member companies are the ones responsible for album production, marketing, distribution, merchandising, etc. Yes, we can find an online alternative for each of these things, but will it be as pervasive? None of the independent bands or labels relying solely on the Internet have reached the critical mass of Britney Spears... and little Britney would still be living in a trailer if it were up to her to finance an album and tour by herself.
Online music sharing would make a great complement to existing distribution and marketing channels, but as a complete and total replacement, it won't happen until every last music consumer decides they don't want to go to a physical store to buy a physical CD.
I didn't question the legality of MP3s. Again, the RIAA only wants you to consume music using an accepted audio playback device. Several Congressmen and Senators to include former Senator Bob Barr recognize music consumption as being licensed. The MP3 format itself is legal, but the audio CD format with copy protection is not illegal. What government says and does are two separate things wholly.
The RIAA continues to support prodution and distribution of audio CDs that have copy protection built-in in order to circumvent attempts to convert music to another format.
The RIAA supports buying MP3s, provided that the MP3 were distributed by a licensed vendor who obtained authorization to generate MP3s. Apple's music store is legal. You selling MP3s online you made without license would be illegal.
No, you buy the license to consume the music on the disc according to the RIAA and recognized by Congress. The RIAA doesn't approve consumption by any other means than an accepted audio CD playback device.
You would know this, understand it, and accept it as gospel if you were forced to read an EULA for every CD you bought... but that would hurt CD distribution, and so they leave out the license.
If it wasn't for lawmakers supporting the RIAA, the RIAA could not retroactively apply a license where one was not known to exist. You would have unknowingly been forced into a contractual obligation. In that case, your statement would be legally correct. As it is now, your statement is only morally correct. Sorry.
Maybe it's the vodka shots and margueritas coursing through my system, but these are some of the most convoluted posts I have read yet on Slashdot. I'm not sure I follow any of the arguments these posters are making.
A person with intellectual property rights does not have more/less rights than a person with physical property rights. Copying furniture and clothes???? Cheap knock-offs have long existed in the marketplace. Ask any woman on a budget. What makes digital music different from tangible physical products is that music can be distributed electronically far more easily and cheaply than clothes or television sets. Therefore, copyright violations for music tend to be far more pervasive.
Let's not wax poetic about how the musicians own their music. This is not generally true unless that musician is a powerhouse who wrote, produced, financed, and distributed the album independently of a third-party. Let us not forget, even Paul McCartney had to pay royalties to Michael Jackson in order to perform Beatles songs Paul himself wrote.
If the RIAA or a member company owns the music, it does have a right to say "screw you." You broke your CD, buy a new one. Sony won't give you a new TV just because you threw your scratched up the screen or broke the tuner.
Anyone who things he has a write to own, copy, and distribute someone else's work product without compensating them in a way they agree to is a fool. And a fool can argue all day long about legitimate uses of file-sharing, but the fact is, he himself won't likely buy anything he can't steal online.
That being said, this doesn't make the RIAA 100% right. Most people on both sides of the issue are misunderstanding the issue, the agenda, and what's at stake. This include the idiots over at EFF who recently put a hack of a lawyer on talking heads new program to defend file-sharing with a foolish arrogant, "it's here to stay, just accept it."
The real issue isn't copyrights, it's consumption rights; specifically, the effect of consumption rights on revenue streams from consumption licensing. The RIAA's agenda is to control the method by which you, the possessor of a legally purchased CD, consumes the product. This is how RIAA can ensure it makes a profit each time the music is consumed. The RIAA wants you only to play your CD on a *licensed* CD playback device (DVD player, Walkman, stereo, car stereo) so only you and a few others can consume it at any given time. Remember, the RIAA doesn't want you playing those CDs in public forums without first obtaining a license and paying royalties. The RIAA does not want you to consume your CD vitually, using MP3.com's murdered streaming music service or by using MP3/WMA backups. The RIAA doesn't want you using your CDROM and PC as a stereo. They want you to buy the stereo. The RIAA doesn't want you to make digital copies of your CDs for any purpose unless you first buy a *licensed* expensive Philips CD burner stereo component. This is one reason why the RIAA supports a CD format that can't be copied. If the use of technologies like file-sharing and lossless file-encoding formats reaches critical mass, there might be less need to purchase all those extra hardware components. The RIAA as a result losses revenues.
Similarly, the MPAA only wants you to consume your DVD using licensed DVD hardware. If Linux developers aren't willing to pay licensing fees (which would be prohibitively astronomical if you refuse to pass the cost down to your customers), there won't be legal DVD support on Linux with MPAA's backing. DVD burners cost a lot because of licensing fees and liability issues, not because the technology is exceptionally whiz-bang.
Maybe Final Cut and Final Cut Pro is Apple's way of punishing Adobe for being so lackluster in its Mac support while trumpeting Windows over the last several years?
I wonder what the court would say if an overlay ad were strategically placed over the logo of a website so as to conceal the ownership of the site.
Kinda like if the Slashdot logo being replaced by a FortuneCity logo.
Maybe then the court would have a problem. An old case comes to mind about a webmaster whose news site using frames to load news stories from other news site like CNN, etc.
That's old news. Marketers and advertising execs have known for years that a sensory overload of information can entice people.
I agree. Congress has proven itself again and again to be inept when it comes to legislating electronic communications. Maybe's it's because there's not likey not a single engineering or scientist among them. Maybe it's because of the lobbyists. That would at least explain why Congress is so adament that illegalizing spam and popups would hurt the Internet and make everything online cost more...
There are a lot of people who rifle through popup windows without first checking things like certificate validity or origin. So a lot of people aren't going to go to the website in order to learn about GAIN.
Yes, that's their fault if they're too impatient or trusting to investigate things like GAIN, but it's for the same reason that we put cute labels about things that should be obvious like "Do Not Eat" or "Very Hot" on products.
God, if I could only use those points in my next team eval at work!